About Me

Arborg, Manitoba, Canada
Married to the love of my life with whom I (and God - all three of us) have co-created three incredible sons. Interested in philosophy, theology, and how to live Truth. Love music but couldn't carry a tune to save my life.

Saturday 19 July 2008

Romans Gospel - Part III

Romans 9 is Paul’s review of Jewish history, and is too often misunderstood because it is not read as being of a piece with Paul’s experience of his own Jewishness. His people are a chosen people, and his heart is broken at their cavalier recklessness and presumption regarding their favored status. He could wish himself accursed for the sake of his people (9:3). All the benefits of being God’s chosen people - God’s adopted children, no less - the covenants, the temple, and the promises were their’s for the taking, but they despised their birthright, and forfeited many of the blessings of being chosen. It was not God who broke His promise, but the children who blocked the fulfillment of the promises in their experience. As it turned out it was those who sought the God who made the promises who were reckoned as His chosen children (9:8). This is evident in the inclusion in the Messianic line of several people who were not descendants of Abraham. These people were welcomed into the family of the chosen on the strength of their choice to cast their lot in with the Israelites. Their inclusion is not based on the merits of their choice though their choices are pivotal, but on the merits of God’s promise.
Abraham had two sons, but not all of the sons are included as the children of Israel (9:6). Abraham messed that up with his machinations intended to help God fulfill His promise. When that caused familial squabbles Abraham had to send Ishmael and his mother away. Hence God is reduced to giving Abraham children as numerous as the stars in the heavens, or the sand on the seashore, through one solitary son, but God does not give up on His own promise. He told Abraham he would be blessed and He will bless Abraham, and the world through his family.
Both of Isaac’s children turn out to be shysters and hooligans. The younger brother cheats the elder out of his birthright and the blessing, and the elder bother vows to kill the younger for his shenanigans. The younger brother flees for his life and trades cheats with his uncle for 14 years. There is still no meritorious material for making a family who will be a channel of blessing for the world, but still, God does not give up. He will bless the world through Abraham, and since there is no obvious candidate based on honorable conduct, God chooses the younger to emphasize that his blessing falls undeserving on all who will submit to His blessing. God’s purpose in choosing the Israelites as a vessel of blessing for the world will stand, even though He must repeatedly covenant to do so through reluctant vessels (9:11f in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls).
Throughout the rest of the chapter Paul emphasizes that God’s choices are always in our favor.
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (9:15) “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one” and “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” (9:25, 26)
God’s choices are not to bless some and damn others. God’s choices are always to have mercy and compassion, even when there is no justification for such. God’s choices are always to include as many as will heed His call among those whom He calls His chosen people. God’s choices are always good news for all people. Left to our own ways we would quickly bring on ourselves the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (9:29), but because God chooses otherwise we have the opportunity to make choices we do not deserve to have, and we are inundated with blessings we do not merit. When we would justly be the objects of His wrath He is patient and continues to call (9:22-24). Thanks be to God!!
God gave Pharaoh an opportunity to be part of his redemption plan for His children (9:17). Pharaoh chose to work against God’s purposes and suffered for it, but God continued to work out his plan for the redemption of His children. Pharaoh would not be unchanged in this experience. He would come out the other side of this experience a changed man, battle hardened, but whether that hardening would be for good or evil would depend in large measure on how he chose to respond to the opportunity God sent his way.
Paul continues with quotes from the prophets in which God warns His chosen children that their ways constantly lead them to ruin, but he also tells them that He will, because of His grace and mercy, institute remedies far beyond what their imagination could conjure in order to work salvation for them. Those who seek a salvation which they control will not find it. Those who go about their life not worrying about their salvation will realize a salvation that only God could provide.

5 comments:

Matt said...

Throughout the rest of the chapter Paul emphasizes that God’s choices are always in our favor.

But it doesn't sound like 11-13 work in Esau's favour:

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Or in Pharoah's favour. God raised Pharoah up to harden him in order that God could show His power over him.

Exodus 9:16:But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comments.
The verses you cite can be read in several ways and depending on the assumptions operative in one's approach to the text, conflicting readings can seem plain and convincing to different readers. I think we need to be careful to always consider historical and scriptural contexts, particularly when reading quotes of scripture within scripture. It is far too easy to insinuate pre-existing theology and definitions into our readings of scripture, but you know that is eisegesis rather than exegesis.
How one defines election makes a critical difference in the tenor of 11-13. To assume willy nilly that election referes to individual salvation is anachronistic. That is an easy assumption to make given our heritage of modernism with its emphasis on personal autonomy and radical independence. In scripture the term refers to choosing for a purpose, and it is linked to the choosing of a community rather than the election of individuals.
In this case I think it reflects God's choice of a chosen people through whom God wishes to reach the world with the gospel of love and direction for right living. In order to accomplish this purpose God did not wait around for individuals who seemed to be suited for the task, but God chose people regardless of their qualifications, often resulting in what seemed to be spectacularly unsuitable individuals whose only qualification was that they had been chosen.
Jacob is a case in point. His life of cheating and running does not reflect the character we generally attribute to God's chosen servants, but that is who he was. God chose to use the younger brother to reach into the world even though later events might make Esau look like the better choice as far as lifestyle is concerned. In spite of Jacob's devious shenanigans Esau was still blessed, so this is not a choice against Esau, but a choice for Jacob.
"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is not a quote from Genesis. This is not a statement that God made prior to the birth of Jacob and Esau, as a statement of arbitrary choice. This is a quote from the writings of the prophet Malachi hundreds of years later and the statement is made as a review of how God had treated these brothers. The tone in Malachi is almost one of amazement at how shabbily Esau was treated in comparison to Jacob, the point being that after all God did for Jacob's family they spurned God's favor. The chosen ones do not invariably respond favorably to the privilege of being chosen by God.
To say that God raised up Phaorah in order to harden him, and assuming a negatively pejorative intent in 'hardening', is to read too much into the text. Your reference clearly indicates that Pharaoh was raised up as an instrument to glorify God, but that does not mean that Pharaoh's rebellious reponse was intended. Would you not agree that people who live godly lives are a better testimony to glory of God than are those who rebel? 'Hardening' is not a universally negative term in scripture. It is a term that refers to a testing and refining process. A hardened axe head will cut more than an untempered axe head will, but whether that cutting is for good or evil remains to be determined. God put Pharaoh into situations in which he had to make pivotal choices. These choices would mold who Pharaoh became, and he would emerge from these experiences battle hardened no matter which course he chose. Had he chosen to obey God and send the Israelites off with his blessing he (and we) would have seen an entirely different manifestation of God's glory, and he would have been confirmed in that trajectory of life. Either way, God's power would be shown and God will be glorified. How that happens in our own lives depends in a significant measure on our response to God's call in our own lives.
Israel's history repeats this theme time and again. God's choices are for our salvation but if we stubbornly refuse to obey then our own choices eventually condemn us.

Matt said...

To assume willy nilly that election referes to individual salvation is anachronistic.

Except that Scripture always refers to individuals when speaking of election. I wouldn't say that's willy nilly.

That is an easy assumption to make given our heritage of modernism with its emphasis on personal autonomy and radical independence.

To be perfectly clear, my heritage is in the conservative evangelical stream of history. A stream that was very intentional about spurning modernism and selfish autonomy. We are now doing the same with hyper-modernism, which is also known as postmodernism.

n order to accomplish this purpose God did not wait around for individuals who seemed to be suited for the task, but God chose people regardless of their qualifications, often resulting in what seemed to be spectacularly unsuitable individuals whose only qualification was that they had been chosen.

Couldn't agree more.

The chosen ones do not invariably respond favorably to the privilege of being chosen by God.

So Jesus is in error in John 6. Got it.

To say that God raised up Phaorah in order to harden him, and assuming a negatively pejorative intent in 'hardening', is to read too much into the text.

Except that Exodus is pretty clear at many points that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I happen to believe that the nature of this hardening was passive (i.e. - God withdrawing common grace and leaving Pharaoh to his own devices) rather than active, it is the reality that God brought about, and God always achieves His purposes.

Would you not agree that people who live godly lives are a better testimony to glory of God than are those who rebel?

That depends on what aspect of Himself God wishes to display. If displaying holiness, then yes. Glory refers to the entirety of God's being, and wrath is part of that being. So it would be entirely consistent that God is glorified in His victory and judgment over evil, such as in Pharaoh.

Blessings,
Matt

Snow said...

Hi Matt,
Except that Scripture always refers to individuals when speaking of election.
You can't be serious. You could make an argument that it sometimes refers to individuals, but not always. What about God choosing Israel? What about the references to the church(es) as the elect?
So Jesus is in error in John 6. Got it.
Or perhaps (just maybe) you misunderstood John 6. At the very least we disagree on the intent of those words.
If you see God's role in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart as passive then we pretty much agree.
Thanks again for the comments.

Matt said...

I apologize, Henry. I did in fact intend to say "almost always" when speaking of election.